Top
190°

Rise of the Tomb Raider: Strategy Of Microsoft

Microsoft has taken some bold steps in distinguishing the Xbox One as the ultimate gaming console. Not simply content with resting on its own superb line-up of first party titles from the explosive continuation of Master Chief’s adventures to the mind bending temporal high jinks of Quantum Break the company is reaching out to secure a terrific collection of third-party exclusives that’ll shape the future of the console.

The story is too old to be commented.
daBUSHwhaka1532d ago

Bring it on.Loved the last game and I'm sure this will not disappoint.2015 is gonna be a great year for xbox owners.

TheWatercooler1532d ago (Edited 1532d ago )

Only Microsoft would ever pull a [email protected]*k move like this. They paid for exclusion. Plain and simple. All they care about is sales of new consoles. Being exclusive doesn't benefit current xbone owners one bit. Why? Because this game was already coming to the Xbone. So what difference has it made? All they have done is pay for exclusion because they think it will shift more xbones. The back lash has taught them what a mistake it was.

And the fact that it is only timed (after they outright lied that it wasn't) makes this deal even worse. It makes it pointless infact. It will probably be a waist of money. They have very little studio's so this is all they can resort to. At least Sony have a real commitment to gaming by investing and growing there own games from conception to reality and taking some risks.

There is no company lower than Microsoft in the gaming business.

@Yarbie. By not buying it? err ok. I suppose Microsoft are used to that with their sales getting trounced

umair_s511532d ago

MS is running a business. Was MGS4 not a Sony exclusive last time round and Bayo 2 on Wii U

yarbie10001532d ago

the fact that you've had such an emotional response to a game being exclusive i would say bodes well for Microsoft

GameSpawn1532d ago (Edited 1532d ago )

I'm paraphrasing here, but someone could surely find the interview. Microsoft was asked about having their version of Uncharted and responded in reference to the Tomb Raider one year exclusivity buyout with "We'd love to have our [version of] Uncharted, we just don't want to make it".

THIS is why Microsoft is the scum of the gaming industry. Instead of investing in 1st party games and studios they just "commission" 3rd party studios to make all their games. I'm using that word loosely by the way.

What is bad is that even Nintendo puts more effort into their first party offerings -- and without too much effort.

Seriously it would not take much for Microsoft to grow their 1st party studios if they are good about finding and keeping talented developers. Microsoft's problem is that it is run by people who care about money and the bottom line first and constantly seeking out the lowest risk for reward situation possible. Think about it...what is worse...a 3rd party exclusive game failing that had most of the development cost on the 3rd party's shoulders and very little risk from Microsoft or a 1st party game failing that had ALL the cost and risk on Microsoft's shoulders?

From a business perspective you can see why Microsoft has always gone with the former. However business perspective aside, big risks DO pay off. Uncharted is the perfect example and Naughty Dog not only hit it out of the park once, but three freaking more times (UC2, UC3, and LoU). LittleBigPlanet is another risk/reward that paid off well for Sony.

In the end this decision was in poor taste from both Microsoft and Square. Both companies are run by nutbags that have no place in the gaming industry and only stand to further stagnate and hold back the evolution of the gaming industry.

IGiveHugs2NakedWomen1532d ago

It's an interesting idea to get exclusivity deals with 3rd party developers, however, Microsoft does run the risk of alienating gamers on other platforms. I'm sure that the Tomb Raider deal did nothing to encourage PS4 owners to run out and buy an Xbox One. For some, it's just another reason not to get an Xbox One.

ScorpiusX1532d ago

That could have happen either way , no matter who secured the deal.this is more of let's compete with UC in some form during that release window.

strangeaeon1532d ago

Microsoft should have had Black Tusk working on their own UC instead of a new Gears. I will get TR because I loved the last game, but I don't think it's fair to PS4 gamers.

OpieWinston1532d ago

@Strangeaeon

That is the worst idea ever... Please go back to what ever corner you crawled out of.

Gears a Billion dollar franchise...

And they've now got plenty of ex Gears devs including Rod helming the project. They'd have been crazy NOT to push Gears.

Considering Gears is pretty much the king of competitive TPS.

Ryan7411532d ago ShowReplies(2)
lelo2play1532d ago (Edited 1532d ago )

When Microsoft and Nintendo (remember Bayonetta 2) get 3rd party exclusives, it's very very bad. When Sony get 3rd party exclusives, then it's great.

Such hypocrisy...

I have a PS4 but I can't stand Sony fanboys. They unable to understand that Sony does the exact same thing.

InTheLab1532d ago

There's a difference here and the difference is TR is a long established franchise that really started on Playstation.

No one gives a s$;& about Quantum Break or Dead Rising. Could care less about those games being exclusive even though I like Remedy. Could care less about Ryse as its a dud anyway and even if it was at least decent, exclusives are there for a reason.

But this.... All MS did was pay to delay a game for PS and PC and its bulls$&&.

lelo2play1532d ago (Edited 1532d ago )

@InTheLab

You are a perfect example of what's wrong with Sony fanboys. You try to find excuses and justifications where there is none. Simply put, Tomb Raider is a business deal just like many business deals Sony has done with countless 3rd party developers.

For you everything Sony does is perfectly justifiable.

umair_s511532d ago

@lelo2play Agree 100% with you, Bayo 2 is a pristine example also MGS4 on PS3 was equally unfair to 360 owners

GameSpawn1532d ago

Bayonetta and Metal Gear Solid were made exclusive by decision of the developer NOT Nintendo or Sony. In fact MGS4's exclusivity was heavily influenced by Kojima himself. Konami like any 3rd party publisher wanted as many platforms as possible, but at the time Kojima had so much control over the Metal Gear Solid franchise and a powerful position within Konami that his choice to release it solely for PS3 won over (for those that don't know Kojima is VERY MUCH a "PlayStation guy" because of the success of the Solid franchise on the original PlayStation).

I'm sorry that some people are too "jaded" to see past their own hypocrisy.

Tomb Raider's situation is VERY much a different situation as Microsoft initiated the exclusivity by approaching Square with the offer (NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!). All you people are doing is enforcing bad business practices by actually trying to defend them on this.

InTheLab1532d ago (Edited 1532d ago )

Way to generalize dude....go back through my comments. Not a fan of Vita or how ass PSN has been this gen. Not a fan of Nintendo and the WiiU. Not a fan of the shady bulls*() MS pulls.

This so called business decision benefits Xbox gamers how? How does this help you? All it does is prevent fans on other platforms from playing the game in 2015 and some of us will probably skip it all together.

I didn't even mention sony let alone defend them so you just have this stock answer for everyone that has a problem with Microsoft. "Well you're a fanboy" is all you have?

How about challenge what I actually said and not bring up conversations you've had with other people?

jb2271532d ago

@lelo

Let's see the facts to back that statement that Sony does exactly what Microsoft did in this situation. Where they were lacking in first party studios & games, and instead of creating more for the industry, they just threw money at a developer to exclude other gamers from continuing a journey they already started on the platform of their choice?

It's like Phil Spencer's reasoning of "wanting an Uncharted type game", when Sony wanted a Halo type game, they created a new ip & gave big funds to a publisher to try to make one…that's good for the industry, more true competition, more games & studios for gamers, more jobs for developers. Rise of the Tomb Raider is a game that was already on the way, it was already coming to everyone, including Microsoft fans so don't use the excuse I see a lot that it might not have happened if they didn't secure a deal w/ MS. There really is no way to spin this deal as being good for gamers, and that whole garbage about "this is a business" doesn't work either because unless you are in the business of creating and selling games, you are a gamer whose desires have absolutely nothing to do w/ the business of the industry & in some cases run completely against those tactics.

lelo2play1532d ago (Edited 1532d ago )

@InTheLab, GameSpawn, jb227

How do you guys know Sony don't pay for 3rd party exclusives games that were originally suppose to be multiplatform?

For example, let's take a look at From Software's PS4 exclusive Bloodborne. With the sales the Dark Souls series had on the X360/PC, don't you guys think Bloodborne would have been a multiplatform game if Sony hadn't struck a exclusive deal? So basically Sony took the game away from the X1/PC gamers. Was that good for gamers ? Was that good for X1/PC Souls fans ? Will that help PS4 gamers that the game is PS4 exclusive? NO... but it will sell more PS4's, just like Tomb Raider will sell more X1's. BUSINESS!

Can you guys see where I'm getting at ?

To sum it up, every PS4 3rd party exclusive could have originally been a multiplatform game, but due to Sony's deals, they are PS4 exclusives. You guys can come up with lame excuses and justifications, but Sony does the exact same thing Microsoft did with Tomb Raider.

So... STOP being HYPOCRITES (if you don't know what it means, look it up).

BTW... no more bubbles :(

GameSpawn1532d ago (Edited 1532d ago )

lelo I'm sorry your out of bubbles, but you are grasping at straws to suit your agenda.

You do know From Software is a small developer that does not have the ability to publish their own games worldwide right? Most of their games are released in Japan first and sometimes ONLY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Demon's Souls (Published by Sony in Japan, Atlus in the US and Namco in Europe)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Demon's Souls was localized by Atlus and Namco, BUT because Sony already owned the right to the IP because of first publishing it in Japan it NEVER could be ported to other consoles. AGAIN DIFFERENT FROM THE TOMB RAIDER SITUATION!!!!

Dark Souls (Published by Namco worldwide)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Dark Souls II (From Software only published in Japan, Namco published worldwide)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Bloodborne (Being published by Sony Japan Studio and Sony Entertainment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Again because this game is PUBLISHED by Sony, Sony owns the IP. Ratchet & Clank is another example of a game made by a 2nd/3rd party, but published by Sony and thus owned by Sony.

Last I checked Tomb Raider is STILL being published by Square/Eidos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

If I am correct Titanfall, as another example, was NOT published by Microsoft and Microsoft MUCH like Tomb Raider paid for that game, but didn't publish it themselves!!! In fact Titanfall was going to be just like Tomb Raider (a timed exclusive) until EA and Microsoft made a deal behind Respawn's back for complete exclusivity. Thank GOD!! Square has not proven to be this freaking dumb yet.

Again, developing is one thing and publishing is another and 9 times out of 10 the publisher reserves the right to which systems that the final product lands on as the publisher is the one footing the bill to land it on those systems!!!

Please come up with better examples where Sony (or Nintendo) actually paid to keep a game out of Xbox owners hands that they themselves did not end up publishing and again DO NOT say MGS4 because it is already public knowledge that was a decision of Kojima as it is HIS game to do with what he pleases.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1532d ago
DoubleM701532d ago (Edited 1532d ago )

You don't have to be loyal to any of these companies. Just bring on the games regardless what console they own. Back in the day Sony didn't just buy IP they would buy the whole studio. Just like they did with Naughty Dog. I don't want to hear any excuses not be a gamer. I guess some of you all are just too young to remember when Sony was the big fish.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1532d ago
qwerty6761532d ago (Edited 1532d ago )

Title was a little misleading, but i guess its to get people to click.

they only hinted at Microsofts strategy to focus more on gaming for like one sentence

then talked about something completely different the rest of the article.

and we already know Microsofts strategy for the game. as Phil Spencer said himself. it was to combat Uncharted 4 next year.

SnakeCQC1532d ago

Making a game that was originally a multi plat into a exclusive was a pretty crappy move imho

mcstorm1532d ago

People seem to forget that Tomb Raider was originally an exclusive on the Saturn so it has a history of moving platforms.

This could be a good move for Microsoft as they could pickup extra sales next year for this game but we will have to wait and see how it plays out.

Spotie1532d ago

An exclusive going multiplat isn't nearly the same, and you know this. Unless the original platform gets left out, you're only expanding your audience; that's generally acceptable.

But cutting off your original fanbase? Who does that?

More importantly, why are so many of you guys so eager to say that's okay?

I got it. From now on, Halo will be exclusive to Nintendo. Makes sense, right?

mcstorm1532d ago

So would you be saying the same thing if it was only on the PS4? Looking at your comment history that's a no.

InTheLab1532d ago

It was never originally exclusive but the Saturn was the lead platform. Eidos assumed Sega would dominate so they developed the game first for the saturn but quickly launched a port along side the Saturn version so there was never any exclusivity. Sony dominated the market share so they focused on the PS. Lara even became the mascot of the PS along with Crash.

Speaking of Marketshare. This still makes no sense anyway you slice it. Alienating the larger market can't possible make up for the millions MS paid for this game and what does this deal do for Xbox One owners? They were getting the game anyway...

mcstorm1532d ago

@InTheLab Its still not an exclusive now its a timed exclusive so it will be coming to the PS4 a few moths after too.

I do agree with you on the side of the PS4 being so far ahead of the xbox one that its a strange decision but we don't know what has gone on in the background on why its coming the 360 and One 1st.

Plus will PS4 users really pickup Tomb Raider the same time UC4 is out?

Im not saying its good or bad for the industry but a lot goes on in the gaming industry we don't know about an never will.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1532d ago
Unarmed_Civilian1532d ago

Get serious, its only a timed exclusive and 6-12 monts a Definite Edition will be released for PC and PS4.

BLow1532d ago

Actually we really never got a straight answer for that. During the announcement, they said exclusive for 2015. I do agree with you with you that it will come. The answer is when. I mean if MS just paid for the holidays then technically it can come out January 1st.But I'm predicting Feb or March 2016. So no sweat off my back. The holidays are going to be stacked with games just to worry about 1. Plus the PS4 version will have improvements anyways.

Oh and I forgot, PS4 has that little game called Uncharted to tide us over. That is assuming that these games don't get delayed and that's a whole other story.

TheLastColossus1532d ago

The Fall of The Tomb Raider.

Show all comments (68)
The story is too old to be commented.